Publication
Supreme Court rules CFPB funding structure is lawful
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on May 16, 2024 that the current funding structure for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional.
United Kingdom | Publication | November 2020
First published by LexisNexis
Paragraphs 189–192 of chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are entitled 'Proposals affecting heritage assets' and paragraphs 193–202 'Considering potential impacts'. These paragraphs do not refer to 'mitigation measures', but it is nonetheless clear that the assessment to be undertaken by the local planning authority (LPA), as to whether the development proposal causes substantial or less than substantial harm, is to be conducted after mitigation measures have been taken into account.
Paragraph 196 states: 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm…' (emphasis added).
Paragraph 197 states: 'The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset…' (emphasis added).
These extracts make it clear that it is the 'development proposal' and the 'application' that is to be considered. A development proposal/application will normally be presented to the LPA as a complete package that includes measures that avoid, minimise and mitigate heritage harm. In fact, there is an onus on the applicant to do just this.
Paragraph 6 of Historic England’s guidance ‘Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2’ sets out a suggested structured approach to assessment by applicants. This is as follows:
Reference should also be made to Historic England’s guidance 'The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3', which includes paragraphs 26–29 entitled 'Maximising enhancement and minimising harm'. Examples are given of measures that enhance, minimise and mitigate harm.
Measures that 'avoid' harm form part of the initial scheme design, for example the orientation of a block, or the distance of a block from a boundary. The Planning Practice Guidance refers to this in the following terms:
'Understanding the significance of a heritage asset and its setting from an early stage in the design process can help to inform the development of proposals which avoid or minimise harm… appraisals or investigations can identify alternative development options, for example more sensitive designs or different orientations…' (Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 18a-008-20190723).
Measures that 'minimise' harm will be design features that form part of the overall package, such as selecting a coloured render to match that of an adjacent listed building, or an ironmongery detail that takes design clues from the listed building.
Examples of measures that 'mitigate' harm are planting screening, or asset management.
Other mitigation will be conditions on a consent such as recording, reporting and written schemes of investigation.
The entire approach to assessment of harm by the applicant is therefore one that requires 'mitigation measures' to be considered holistically. It would be bizarre if the assessment of the application to be undertaken by the LPA required it to strip out from its consideration some or all of these measures.
If the NPPF author had intended that assessment of heritage harm should not be of the application or development proposal as a whole, then this would have needed to have been made much clearer. The common sense reading of NPPF paragraphs 196 and 197 is that it is the entire development proposal that is to be considered by the LPA when assessing heritage harm.
For further guidance, see Practice Note: Heritage issues in determining planning applications.
Publication
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on May 16, 2024 that the current funding structure for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023